October 15, 2025 • 46 mins
Cameras love a finish line. Real peace rarely offers one. We open with a bold victory lap and press on the brakes, examining what a signed deal in Gaza can and can’t do while weapons remain, hostages return in tears and coffins, and leaders pull in opposite directions. I walk through Netanyahu’s conspicuous absence, Abbas’s calculated presence, and Trump’s push to scale the Abraham Accords into something bigger—maybe even stretching toward Tehran—then ground it in the only things that count: disarmament that sticks, institutions that work, and neighborhoods that can rebuild a normal day.
The conversation then crosses oceans to our own streets, where Texas aims to scrub “ideology” from roadways and rainbow crosswalks become the test case. We parse safety claims, content neutrality, and the risk of censorship by funding threat. If neutrality is real, it must be even-handed; if it is selective, it’s control dressed as policy. From there, Congress and the courts take the stage: a grinding shutdown tied to ACA subsidies and hard-nosed vote math, followed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Alex Jones’s appeal, affirming that defamation has consequences even in a loud media age.
To widen the lens, we demystify socialism—definitions, variants, and outcomes—separating democratic, libertarian, and social approaches from the caricatures of authoritarianism. We look at where social democracy thrives, how communities like Catalonia and the Zapatistas built alternative models, and why the metrics that matter are health, mobility, and shared security. The closing poem, “I Apologize,” brings the themes home: dignity, visibility, and the cost of erasure. If there’s a single thread tying geopolitics, civic space, and political economy together, it’s this: declarations make headlines; delivery changes lives. Subscribe, share with a friend who cares about results over rhetoric, and leave a review to help more people find the show. Where should we press next?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:00):
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm Darrell McLean, anindependent media that will
reinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving now.
Let us reason together.
Trump's Middle East victory lap,let's talk about the spectacle
that just unfolded in the MiddleEast.
President Donald Trump neverwanted to shy away from the
spotlight, wrapped up awhirlwind tour he dubbed the
historic dawn of a new MiddleEast.
(00:20):
Big words, big promises, and ifyou take the man at face value,
the war in Gaza is now over.
SPEAKER_04 (00:25):
Done.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
Finished and tied up with a ribbon.
But you and I both know peaceisn't just a signature on paper.
It is an applause and thekinekon sat or smiles in Cairo.
Peace is fragile, messy, and itdoesn't care about how many
cameras are rolling when youdeclare it.
Trump says the war is over.
On Air Force One, before hisplane even hit the tarmac, Trump
told reporters the war is over.
He doubled down after landing inIsrael.
He tripled down in Egypt.
(00:47):
And in his grand, sweeping wayhe declared it 3,000 years to
get to this point.
Now I don't know about you, butI've read enough history to know
that 3,000 years of conflictdoesn't evaporate because one
man signed a peace plan.
The ink may be dry, but theweapons in Gaza are not.
The entire deal hinges on Hamashanding over its arms to
spanning militias and renouncingpower.
That's not just a tough ask,it's an ask that borders on
(01:08):
fantasy.
Senator Lindsey Graham, whousually marches in lockstep with
Trump, felt the need to wave ared flag.
He basically said, Hold yourhorses.
Even while Trump was basking invictory, militias in Gaza were
still killing each other,hostages, the joy and the grief
now to the human side.
On Monday, Israel welcomed homethe last twenty living hostages.
(01:29):
Families cried tears that hadbeen held back for too long,
brutal years.
That is no small victory.
It is life itself returned.
But joy and grief are tangledtogether here.
Twenty-eight hostages never cameback alive.
Their remains are now beingpulled out of Gaza piece by
piece.
Four coffins arrived in Israelthis week.
(01:50):
Twenty-four more are stillunaccounted for.
Imagine that pain waiting yearsfor a loved one's return only to
receive a coffin.
And worse, Hamas is stalling,saying it needs more time to
find the bodies as if the deadare bargaining chips.
The hostages and missingfamilies form a group that has
stood by these families from thebeginning, said enough is
enough.
They want the ceasefiresuspended until Hamas makes good
(02:12):
on the deal.
And they're right, because anagreement that doesn't respect
the dead won't respect theliving for long.
Netanyahu stays home, Abbasshows up, then there's the
political theater.
Prime Minister Netanyahudeclined Trump's invitation to
Egypt, citing the Jewish holidayof Simchat Torah.
That's a legitimate reason, butlet's not kid ourselves, his
absence spoke louder than anyholiday observance.
He doesn't trust this deal.
(02:33):
He doesn't want to share a stagewhere the Palestinian Authority
is being embraced.
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas, 89years old and clinging to power
in the West Bank, did show up.
Trump claspsed his hand likethey were old friends, even
though this was only theirsecond meeting.
Trump envisions Abbas's reformedPalestinian Authority as the
future of Gaza.
Netanyahu envisions, well,something entirely different.
(02:56):
He wants no Palestinian state atall.
And there lies the contradictionTrump's plan requires
cooperation from leaders whodon't even agree on the
destination.
Abraham Accords 2.0, of course,Trump couldn't resist talking
about legacy.
He named dropped the AbrahamAccords at every turn, bragging
about those 2020 deals whereBahrain, the UAE, and Morocco
normalized ties with Israel.
He's dreaming of a bigger club,Saudi Arabia, maybe even Iran.
(03:21):
Yes, you heard Trump teased theidea of a truce with Tehran,
calling it the best decisionIran has ever made.
Bold words, but history saysIran isn't exactly quick to play
ball.
Still, you can see the strategy.
Trump wants this Gaza peace dealto be the springboard that
finally pushes reluctant Arabnations into Israel's orbit.
He wants to close the circle andstamp his name on Middle Eastern
diplomacy for good.
(03:41):
Gaza.
The broken future.
Step away from the cameras, theapplause, the speeches, and you
face Gaza itself.
Tens of thousands ofPalestinians dead.
Entire neighborhoods leveled.
Infrastructure destroyed.
Children growing up surroundedby rubble and grief.
British Prime Minister KerrStarmer, who was at the summit,
put it plainly.
(04:02):
In other words, signingceremonies are easy.
Rebuilding lives, demilitarizingGaza, creating something that
looks like a future, that's thehard part.
Trump's board a PCS, that's theactual name is supposed to
oversee this.
He's chairing it himself, withnames like Tony Blair thrown in
the mix.
But Hamas has already made itclear Blair isn't welcome.
His role in the Iraq War makeshim toxic in Gaza.
(04:23):
And if you think Hamas is aboutto smile and hand over its
weapons because Trump and Blairasked nicely, I've got
beachfront property in Kabul tosell you.
The verdict, so here's where Iland, Trump's trip was flashy.
It was historic in the sensethat hostages came home and a
peace deal, however shaky, wassigned.
That matters.
But history doesn't rewarddeclarations, it rewards
results.
And right now, Gaza is a powderkeg, Hamas still holds its guns,
(04:46):
Netanyahu is keeping hisdistance, and the Palestinian
Authority is barely standing.
Trump says the war is over.
I say the war has just entered anew phase.
Peace, if it comes, won't be theresult of applause lines or
victory lapse.
It'll be earned or lost in therubble of Gaza, in the
negotiations nobody televises,in the compromises nobody wants
to make.
For the families reunited withtheir loved ones this week is a
(05:07):
miracle.
For the families still waitingon bodies, it is heartbreak.
For everyone else, it is areminder peace in the Middle
East has been declared manytimes before.
The question is How long will itbe kept?
We have a show question todayfrom Paul, Texas passed an
ordinance or a law not surewhich to ban political signage
on roads.
For example, rainbows atintersections.
(05:30):
What to think of this?
Texas governor recently issued adirective saying roadways must
be ideology free.
No political ideologies paintedon streets, no non-standard
signage, no symbols or flags onintersections or crosswalks
unless they serve a directtraffic or safety function.
Cities face losing state andfederal transportation funding
(05:51):
if they don't comply within 30days.
Specifically, the spotlight ison rainbow crosswalks, a symbol
of LGBTQ plus pride in citieslike Houston, Austin, San
Antonio, Dallas.
So yes, it's not exactly ban allsignposts by Rose, but a
targeted lawslash directive toremove symbols that carry
ideological meaning from publicroadways.
(06:13):
What I think of it, with pros,cons, and warning flags, the
concern over each suppression,slippery slope, freedom of
expression.
When the state says certainsymbols like rainbows are
political ideologies and thusmust come down, it bleeds into
censorship.
Which ideologies will be next?
How do you draw the line withoutbias?
(06:34):
Weaponizing funding.
Using funding as leverage toforce compliance is
heavy-handed.
Local governments often needthose dollars to fix real roads.
This is a coercive power play,symbolic erasure.
Removing crosswalks or symbolstied to marginalized communities
is erasure in plain sight.
It sends a message, you are lesswelcome, less visible.
(06:56):
Pretext of safety and ampuniformity.
Arguments about distraction ornon-uniform markings are
plausible, but they're also easycover.
If the same paint jobs existedfor acceptable ideologies, would
the same argument hold?
Constitutional risk, laws thatrestrict expressive conduct,
especially in public forms, mustsurvive First Amendment
(07:18):
scrutiny.
To ban expressive symbolswholesale is risky legally.
The argument in favor thatpeople pushing this will make
traffic and driver safety.
If roadways become visual noise,it could distract drivers.
Consistency in road design.
Public roads have standards.
Symbols or coloring that deviatemight confuse signage systems,
(07:41):
emergency responders, orautomated vehicle sensors,
neutral government space.
The idea that public roadsshould not serve as platforms
for political messaging, keepgovernment spaces ideologically
neutral.
Taxpayer stewardship.
Spending public money to promoteideologies is a slippery slope,
(08:01):
critics will argue.
My take I lean sharply on theside that this is a political
power move masquerading as asafety regulation.
The safety and uniformityjustifications are thin when you
see them applied selectively,e.g., pointing at rainbow
crosswalks, but not sayreligious or historical murals.
And the timeline, 30 days,funding threats, reeks of
(08:23):
wanting fast compliance beforepushback and build.
What worries me most?
Someone picks a symbol theydon't like, labels it political,
and poof it has no rights.
This law doesn't just remove acrosswalk, it reshapes whose
identity is to be public.
That said, I'm notunconditionally opposed to
regulating signage.
(08:44):
Roads do need clarity, but thestandards must be content
neutral, applied even-handedly,transparent, subject to judicial
review, and not used to a racedissent.
To watch for slash how thismight play out, one legal
challenges.
I expect lawsuits.
Someone will argue FirstAmendment, equal protection.
(09:06):
If localities had rainbowcrosswalks but not others, that
differential treatment issuspect.
Two, pushback from cities.
Some may try to get exemption.
San Antonio is already trying.
Three, creative resistance.
Communities may shift tosidewalk murals if that's
allowed, or symbolic art onpublic property off roadbeds.
(09:29):
Four national trend.
This echoes what's going on inFlorida at the federal level, US
dot where ministries want topurge political messages from
roadways.
Five, ambiguity exploitation.
The laws vague phrases politicalideologies give officials broad
discretion.
That's dangerous.
(09:53):
Folks, let's talk about arainbow.
Not the one in the sky after astorm, the one painted at an
intersection in Houston.
The kind of crosswalk that tellsyou a neighborhood is alive,
proud, and saying somethingabout who they are.
That rainbow is now on thechopping block.
Why?
Because the governor of Texashas decided rainbows are
(10:14):
political ideology and don'tbelong on public roads.
Governor Abbott's directive sayscities have 30 days to strip
away anything on their streetsthat isn't uniform traffic
safety markings.
The warning was clear.
Fail to comply, and you risklosing not just state dollars,
but federal transportationfunding.
It's the political version ofnice city you got, their shame
(10:37):
if something happened to yournow.
The talking point here is safetyand consistency.
They'll tell you non-standardmarkings might distract drivers
or confuse self-driving cars ormess with emergency responders.
I'm not dismissing thatentirely, roads do need clarity.
When you're barreling down I-10at 75 miles per hour, you don't
(11:00):
want to play guess that symbol.
But let's be honest, this isn'tabout traffic safety.
This is about erasing symbols ofcommunities that certain
politicians don't like seeingout in the open.
Because let's test their logic.
If this is about uniformity, whydo we allow painted blue lines
on roads for back the blue?
Why do we allow giant highwaysigns announcing religious
(11:22):
holidays or political heroes?
If safety is truly the issue,then you'd apply the standard
neutrally across the board.
But the hammer always seems tocome down when the paint job
celebrates pride, diversity, oranything outside the political
comfort zone of whoever's incharge, and here's where it gets
dangerous.
The word political ideology isintentionally vague.
(11:44):
Who gets to decide what countsas political?
Is a mural of Dr.
Martin Luther King political?
Is a memorial cross for a fallensoldier painted near a base
political?
What about a breast cancerribbon crosswalk?
Does that count?
Once you hand government leadersthe power to pick and choose
which symbols are tooideological, you've opened the
(12:05):
door for selective erasure.
That is censorship with atraffic cone slapped on it.
This isn't just paint.
Symbols in public space tell youwho belongs there, whose voice
is heard, whose history isremembered.
When you strip rainbows off theroad, you're not just removing
bright colors, you're dimmingthe visibility of people who
already feel pushed to themargins.
(12:27):
A rainbow crosswalk in Montrose,Houston wasn't confusing
anyone's Toyota Corolla.
It was a declaration.
Now, what's the other side ofthe argument?
They'll say, well, governmentshouldn't be endorsing
(12:48):
ideologies with taxpayer money.
Fair enough.
But then be consistent, ban themall, not just the ones that make
you uncomfortable.
You can't weaponize neutralityto only silence the groups you
don't like.
Neutrality means either everyonegets to speak or nobody does.
But the one thing it can't meanis the state decides which
(13:10):
voices count as neutral andwhich voices count as dangerous.
That's not neutrality, that'spower flexing.
And notice the stick they'reswinging, funding.
Cities depend on thosetransportation dollars to patch
potholes, fix bridges, keepbuses running.
By tying compliance to money,the state is essentially saying
erase these communities'presence or we'll make sure your
(13:32):
streets crumble.
But that's not lawmaking, that'sextortion.
What happens next?
Well, I expect lawsuits.
Cities like San Antonio arealready exploring whether they
can hold on to their rainbowcrosswalks.
Civil rights groups will almostcertainly challenge the
directive on First Amendmentgrounds.
And don't be surprised if sometowns create a painting their
(13:55):
sidewalks instead of thestreets, or finding other ways
to send the same message withouttechnically breaking the rule.
You can scrub the asphalt, butyou can't scrub community pride
out of a neighborhood.
But bigger picture, this is partof a national trend.
We've seen Florida clamp down onwhat can be displayed in public
schools.
(14:15):
We've seen federal agenciesdebate whether Black Lives
Matter murals belong onroadways.
What we're watching is amovement to sanitize public
space so that it reflects onlythe symbols of power, not the
symbols of dissent or diversity.
And let's call that what it is.
It's not about safety, it'sabout control.
So here's my question to you,the listener: if the state can
(14:36):
decide a rainbow is toopolitical for the road, what
else can they decide?
Could a mural honoring veteransbe considered political?
Could a city slogan likeSanctuary City get scrubbed?
The danger of vague laws is theycan be applied selectively today
against one group, tomorrowagainst another.
Here's the closing thought.
(14:57):
Roads are more than concreteslabs that get us from point A
to B.
They're arteries of communitylife.
And sometimes communities paintthose arteries with color to
say, we are alive.
When the state threatens toblack that out, it's not
protecting drivers, it'sprotecting a hierarchy of
visibility.
And if you're comfortable withthat now, just wait until your
(15:18):
symbol, your memorial, yourpride is the next thing they
decide is too political.
Shut down to enter third weekafter Senate rejects bill to
reopen government, the Senaterejected a bill to reopen the
government for the eight timeTuesday, ensuring the shutdown
will enter its third week withlawmakers nowhere close to
finding a resolution.
Senators voted 4945 on the GOP'sHouse passed continuing
(15:40):
resolution, which would fund thegovernment through late
November, and needed 60 votes toadvance.
Sense.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Denev,and Sen.
Angus King I main voted withRepublicans as they have for
nearly two weeks.
John Fetterman Ye, who had votedin favor of the resolution every
other time it has come to thefloor, was not present on
(16:01):
Tuesday.
Rand Paul was, once again, thelone GOP, no vote.
The vote comes as the two sidesremain at a stalemate, with
neither wanting to give anyground.
I guess Democrats are not goingto be satisfied until military
families and government workersare lining up at food banks or
visiting payday lenders orsimply charging necessary items
like milk and bread on theircredit cards to be repaid late.
(16:23):
Senate Majority Leader John saidon the floor before the vote,
lambasting a report thatDemocrats are willing to allow
the shutdown to go on forseveral more weeks.
But hey, while military familiesand government workers may be
deeply stressed, at least lifeis getting better every day for
Senate Democrats, he continued,referring to a comment Senate
(16:44):
Minority Leader Chuck Schumermade last week about Democrats'
political fortunes amid theimpasse.
Democrats have repeatedly calledfor any deal on government
funding to include an extensionof the Enhanced Affordable Care
Act, ACAACA subsidies that areset to expire at year's end.
The GOP, meanwhile, has insistedany talks on those credits can
(17:07):
only take place once thegovernment reopens and have
publicly pleaded for fiveadditional Democrats to side
with them to do so.
That has not happened, though,leading Democrats to argue that
the repeated failed votes beingheld by the majority party
should be an impetus for the twosides to hammer out a deal on
the subsidies.
(17:28):
That means, like it or not, theRepublican leader needs to work
with Democrats in a bipartisanway to reopen the government.
Just as we did when we passed 13CR's continuing resolutions when
I was majority leader, Schumersaid.
The ACA premium crisis is not afix-it-later issue, but rather a
fix-it-now issue, he continued.
(17:49):
Republicans may think they candig in until the next ice age,
but a fork in the road is comingtheir way, whether they like it
or not.
While there was little change inthe numbers, the vote marked a
slight change in GOP tactics.
For the first time since theshutdown started, it was held
without a companion vote on aDemocratic proposal to end the
shutdown.
The failed vote also brings theshutdown closer to making
(18:13):
history.
Not only does it mean theimpasse will continue into its
third week, but it could becomethe second longest shutdown in
U.S.
history on Friday.
It would eclipse the 2013shutdown over the ACA that was
spearheaded by Ted Crewe, Texas.
The record is held by the 35-daybattle in 2018-19 over President
Trump's one-for-border wallfunding.
(18:36):
The Supreme Court on Tuesdayturned down conspiracy theorist
Alex Jones' appeal of a roughly$1.4 billion defamation judgment
he owes for falsely claiming theSandy Hook Elementary School
shooting was a hoax.
The brief order ends Jones' bidto stave off the staggering sum
which has plunged him intobankruptcy and could force him
to give up airing his inforcedshow.
(18:57):
Jones's Supreme Court petitioncalled it financial death
penalty by fiat.
He said his statements werelifted out of context and the
judge didn't give enough weightto his First Amendment
arguments.
Alex Jones is a media defendantentitled to all First Amendment
freedom of the pressprotections, the petition reads.
The justices did not appear togive it much consideration, as
(19:18):
they did not request thefamilies respond to Jones's
petition.
The Supreme Court properlyrejected Jones's latest
desperate attempt to avoidaccountability for the harm he
has caused.
We look forward to enforcing thejury's historic verdict and
making Jones and InfoWars payfor what they have done.
Chris Mattei, an attorneyrepresenting the family, said in
(19:39):
a statement.
Though it's unclear how much thefamilies will recover of the
roughly$1.4 billion billionaward.
Jones remains in bankruptcy, andthe families have moved in
recent weeks to sell assetsowned by his company and free
speech systems.
(20:00):
A judge recently confirmed thoseassets are part of the
bankruptcy estate and thefamilies can pursue claims in
state court.
The families have recentlyconvinced the Texas State Judge
to appoint a receiver, thoughJones is appealing the order.
He has warned that InfoWarscould be sold off to the Onion,
a satirical news site.
Last year, the Onion entered thewinning bid in an auction to
(20:21):
take control of InfoWars, but itwas blocked by the bankruptcy
judge.
The plaintiffs here are on theopposite side of the ideological
spectrum and do not want moneyfor their judgment.
Jones's lawyers wrote to thejustices that their initial
motivations were to get Jones'message off the air.
But after entry of thedevastating, record-breaking
$1,436,650,000 judgment, thatmotivation morphed to something
(20:47):
more sinister.
Now let's go into a blast fromthe intellectual past.
SPEAKER_00 (20:54):
Socialism has never worked.
It's become a truism, repeatedby right-wingers and people who
just don't know much aboutpolitical theory.
It could be something someonetries to say when you tell them
you voted for Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders, don't you knowthat socialism has never worked?
Many don't know much about thehistory of socialism or even
(21:15):
really understand what socialismactually is.
They hear the word socialism andthey think of authoritarian
regimes like the Soviet Union orNorth Korea.
Or even worse, they might say,hey, socialism doesn't work when
they're having a conversationabout someone like Barack Obama,
implying that Obama is himself asocialist.
Now it should go without sayingthat Obama is not a socialist,
(21:39):
but this actually has to beexplained to some people.
This is true regardless ofwhether you are for or against
socialism or communism orcapitalism or social democracy.
I am not a socialist, but I canonly understand that if I
actually know what socialism is.
So let's begin there.
(21:59):
Defined by a textbook, socialismis the collective ownership of a
society's means of production.
Means of production could benon-human resources used to
produce things of economic valuelike real estate or farmland,
natural resources, equipment,buildings, infrastructure,
roads, and collective ownershipof these things, meaning workers
(22:21):
or the public own them.
Some define socialism as asystem by which social equality
can be achieved.
In this broader way of thinkingabout it, socialism could mean
any kind of socialisticphilosophies or attitudes or
tendencies, or a system thatcombines orthodox socialist
practices with other constructslike capitalism.
(22:42):
For instance, you could say thatsome Scandinavian countries are
socialistic by modern standards,not because they have a system
where the government or workersown everything, but because they
have a system where there's arelatively greater amount of
intervention by democraticgovernment to protect
socialistic ideals likeegalitarianism, civil rights,
(23:03):
equal education,environmentalism, and the
prevention of abuse by actors inthe free market.
These are capitalist societies,and they're definitely not
realizations of socialism asdefined in a political science
glossary, but these aremanifestations of socialistic
inclinations, especially whencompared to what goes on in many
other developed countries.
(23:25):
Socialism is an extremely broadumbrella term to describe a wide
range of political, social, andeconomic systems, movements, and
ideas.
Let's explore where socialismcomes from, some of its
variations, and how theyfunctioned in society.
Some elements of socialism haveancient roots.
Ancient Buddhism taught that theindividual and all other living
(23:49):
beings are interconnected andinterdependent, and that all
humans should be treated equallyand with kindness.
People often draw parallelsbetween socialism and Buddhism,
and many say that Plato'srepublic first articulated the
notion of a socialist state, astate that aims to solve social
problems by government actionthrough higher taxes and
(24:09):
redistribution of resources.
There are lots of other aspectsof Plato's Republic that don't
at all align with modernsocialism.
Socialistic ideals are seenbeing portrayed in the Hebrew
Bible, which in many places saysthat people should be treated
equally and that we should begenerous to the have-nots.
The book of Leviticus says youshall not oppress or exploit
(24:31):
your neighbor.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Deuteronomy says God enactsjustice for orphans and widows,
and he loves immigrants, givingthem food and clothing.
That means you must also loveimmigrants because you were
immigrants.
Don't take advantage of poor orneedy workers, whether they are
fellow Israelites or immigrantswho live in your land or your
(24:53):
cities.
From Ecclesiastes, it is God'sgift to humankind that everyone
should eat and drink.
From Psalms, give justice to theweak and the fatherless,
maintain the right of theafflicted and the destitute,
rescue the weak and the needy,deliver them from the hand of
the wicked.
Now, this might get awkward forantisocialist Christian
(25:14):
conservatives, but the NewTestament is also chock full of
socialist themes.
Jesus advocated that all people,including governments, should
provide for the poor anddistribute resources according
to people's needs.
Some quotes from the NewTestament All who believed were
together and had all things incommon, and they sold their
possessions and goods anddivided them among all men as
(25:37):
every man had need.
And the multitude of them thatbelieved were of one heart and
of one soul, neither said any ofthem that aught of the things
which he possessed was his own,but they had all things in
common.
If you would be perfect, go,sell what you possess, and give
to the poor.
When you give a feast, invitethe poor, the maimed, the lame,
(26:01):
the blind, and you will beblessed, because they cannot
repay you.
Distribution was made unto everyman according as he had need.
To take another religiousexample, in Zoroastrianism, the
prophet Nazdak the Younger insixth century Persia promoted
the implementation of socialwelfare institutions and
(26:21):
collective ownership ofproperty.
Many ancient religionsacknowledged the social nature
of humans, whether on purpose orby accident, and promoted
equality, caring for the needy,and common ownership.
The term socialism itself wasn'tused until the early 19th
century in Western Europe byphilosophers and social critics
(26:41):
like Pierre Joseph Proudhon,Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert
Owen.
At first, the word was used notto describe any one political
system, but as an abstraction, aphilosophy that societies could
or should operate to serve thecollective, as opposed to just
thinking about the individual.
This was in the wake of theFrench Revolution and in large
(27:02):
part a reaction to the povertyand inequality that was growing
out of the IndustrialRevolution.
And then over the course of the19th and 20th centuries, there
were many, many differentphilosophies that branched out
of this to form separatesocialist intellectual
movements.
This is where the idea thatsocialism means any one thing is
dispelled.
(27:22):
When someone says socialism hasnever worked, be suspicious that
they're thinking very narrowlyand really not taking into
account how many different typesof socialism there really are
and how different types ofsocialism have manifested, or
they might just be completelyclueless about history, too.
Many of the flavors of socialismhave some overlap and aren't
(27:45):
necessarily mutually exclusivemovements.
One of the first schools ofsocialist thought was utopian
socialism, which in itself issort of an umbrella of different
theories.
But in this way of thinking,socialists have posed that
capitalists, factory owners, andothers would voluntarily hand
over the means of production toworkers.
(28:06):
They believed that this would beaccomplished by way of education
and conversations betweensocialists and capitalists until
all the means of production werecontrolled by the collective and
decentralized democracies.
Many utopian socialists drewfrom Christianity to form the
rationales for their views.
Utopian socialism has often beencriticized for focusing too much
(28:28):
on theoretical models of how thesocialism might work and not
enough on how it would beachieved, hence the name
utopian.
Then there's Marxism.
Now many people refer to Marxismcolloquially as communism, even
though communism can actuallydescribe an array of different
systems, some of which don'teven involve a state, which I'll
touch on in a second.
(28:49):
But Marxism is definitely notmerely synonymous with socialism
the way many people think.
Marxism is a type of socialismor a type of communism,
something very specific.
And it's not just an economicsystem, it's an entire
philosophical worldview and away of analyzing politics and
society, economics, history,religion, art, whatever.
(29:12):
And there is much, much morethat can be explained about
Marxism than I'm able to coverin this video, but as an
ultra-simplified overview,political Marxism is centered
around class struggle,revolution, and Marx's
historical theory ofmaterialism.
Marxism advocates a revolutionwherein a society's means of
(29:32):
production are taken by forcerather than by reform or
negotiation or slower forms oftransition.
The means of production willthen be controlled by a
proletarian state, which intheory will lead to an
egalitarian, stateless societythat governs itself without
coercive institutions.
Really important point here.
(29:53):
This is not what the SovietUnion or its quote communist
successors achieved or were.
Working toward, despite theirpretenses.
Bolshevism, Maoism, and the likeare inherently right-wing,
totalitarian perversions ofMarxism.
In direct contrast to Marxismand other forms of state
socialism is libertariansocialism, where there's an
(30:17):
emphasis on having a state thatis either small and
decentralized or completelynonexistent.
One version of libertariansocialism is anarchism, which is
a set of socialist movementsthat generally oppose the idea
of hierarchies and authorityaltogether, especially the
state.
Really, no variation or stage ofanarchism involves government by
(30:38):
definition, and almost allschools of anarchism see any
type of hierarchy as eitherunnecessary or unethical in any
kind of human interaction, aboss at the workplace, a leader
in a social movement, whateverthe case may be.
Now, within anarchism, there isanarchist communism, which seeks
to abolish not only the statebut all markets, money, and
(30:59):
private property in exchange forcommunal ownership of the means
of production and decentralizedgrassroots direct democracies.
There is anarcho-syndicalism,which can be thought of as a
sort of extension of anarchistcommunism, where the means of
production are controlled byconfederated trade unions called
syndicates.
(31:19):
This type of anarchism actuallymanifested in Catalonia, Spain,
right before World War II.
In this instance, socialismworked.
Almost all industries andaspects of the economy were
collectivized, and societyfunctioned efficiently without
capitalism or money.
Catalonia was able to providequality health care for its two
and a half million inhabitants.
(31:41):
Under anarcho-syndicalism,Catalonia saw a growth in wealth
and production and absence ofpoverty.
More schools were built allaround, objectively better
public services were provided,and they had a highly effective
military, which they constantlyused to protect themselves
against the Spanish nationalistforces during the Spanish Civil
War.
George Orwell described what hesaw when he visited Catalonia in
(32:05):
the 1930s.
It was the first time I had everbeen in a town where the working
class was in the saddle.
This shows you what human beingsare like when they are trying to
behave as human beings and notas cogs in the capitalist
machine.
Anarcho-syndicalist communitiesalso exist today in Chiapas,
Mexico, which first developed inthe 1990s under the Zapatista
(32:27):
movement.
Today they successfully provideadequate education and
healthcare services forthemselves.
They have sustainable andecologically sound agricultural
practices, which provide morethan enough food, and they are
champions of women's rights andthe rights of indigenous
Mexicans.
And there are many other typesof socialist anarchism.
By the way, socialist anarchismshould be redundant because
(32:50):
things like anarcho-capitalismpresent oppressive economic
hierarchies of authority thatare inherently non-anarchistic.
But with all of the ANCAPsrunning around on the internet
these days, it's worth justclarifying that point.
Beyond anarchism, there isdemocratic socialism and social
democracy, which seek toimplement the principles of
(33:11):
socialism in the context of ademocratic and sometimes
capitalist state, principleslike equality, social justice,
environmentalism, civilliberties, free speech.
Democratic socialism and socialdemocracy differ from anarchism,
obviously, because there is astate.
They differ from Marxism becausethey're frequently thought of as
systems that are achievedthrough reform as opposed to
(33:33):
revolution, or they're thoughtof as vehicles for reform to
something else.
And they also don't carry manyof the other characteristics of
Marxism.
Democratic socialism and socialdemocracy are often considered
more centrist than Marxism oranarchism, and, according to
many, are even compatible withcapitalism or at least some
elements of capitalism.
(33:54):
In other words, in democraticsocialism and social
democracies, you can havemarkets, but the state provides
a great deal of regulation andsocial welfare.
Distinctions are sometimes madebetween democratic socialism and
social democracy, in thatdemocratic socialist states will
ensure that major factions ofindustry are publicly owned,
while social democracies tend toexist within more capitalist
(34:17):
frameworks.
Currently, no countries in theworld really fit the description
of democratic socialism.
Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez,claimed to be democratic
socialist, but it was and stillis, by the way, just another
right-wing, oppressive,authoritarian type of socialism.
There are a handful of countriestoday that can be accurately
(34:39):
described as social democracies.
Modern social democracies allowegalitarianism, things like
social welfare, universal healthcare, and representative
democracy to flourish within thecontext of capitalism.
Think of countries like Denmark,Finland, Norway, Iceland,
Sweden.
So modern social democracy issometimes referred to as the
Nordic model.
(35:00):
These countries have freecollege, free graduate school,
free or inexpensive world-classhealth care paid through taxes.
Compared to other developedcountries, generally speaking,
they have lower rates of crimeand a higher quality of life.
Socialism has been used to solveeconomic problems for millennia
in a wide variety of places andin different forms.
(35:23):
Sumeria, circa 2100 BC, had astate-planned economy.
Food was directly distributedthrough the state.
Evidence of their bureaucraciescan be found written on tens of
thousands of clay tablets thatwere excavated in modern-day
Iraq.
The Code of Hammurabi inBabylonia, around 1750 BC, fixed
(35:44):
the wages of workers and cappedhow much physicians were allowed
to charge their patients.
In Egypt, during the Ptolemaicdynasty from 323 to 30 BC, the
state controlled the means ofproduction and every aspect of
commerce.
The government owned all of theland and decided what crops
should be grown and where.
It controlled the mines, theproduction of oil, salt, paper,
(36:06):
textiles, and everything wasfunded through an intricate
taxation system.
Under Emperor Docletian duringthe 3rd century BC, Rome
responded to harmful monopoliesand widespread poverty and
unemployment by nationalizingall major industries and
creating tons of public workprojects.
The Chinese emperor Wu of Han inthe second and first centuries
(36:31):
BC, to combat growing monopoliesand wealth inequality,
established an income tax,nationalized natural resources,
regulated trade, fixed prices,and established public works.
The longest lasting use ofsocialism is thought to be the
Incan economic system betweenthe 13th and 16th centuries.
Everyone in the societycollectively organized every
(36:53):
aspect of agriculture, labor,trade, and transportation, and
the census kept track ofmaterials, individuals, and
income.
The Incan people graciouslyparticipated in the system in
exchange for security and food,and it worked despite the
massive size of the Incanterritory, and it only fell
apart because of the arrival ofthe Spanish in 1533.
(37:14):
Responding to someone claimingthat socialism has never worked,
I would remind them that to theextent that socialism has been
tried, where ideas andtendencies of democratic,
egalitarian, left-wing socialismhave been woven into political
and economic life and haven'tbeen nullified by right-wing
phenomena like totalitarianism,police states, and oligarchy,
(37:37):
the results have been good.
The right wing or conservativeor classical liberal dogma in
the US is that higher taxes anda strong public sector are just
awful.
They say these things inhibiteconomic growth and innovation,
or that the welfare state andthorough regulation of markets
is unsustainable, or even thatthese things endanger individual
(37:58):
liberty.
As progressives, we know that'snot true, or really anyone who
looks at the data or has studiedtruly democratic applications of
socialism would know that's nottrue.
Look at Scandinavian countriestoday, or even countries like
France, Ireland, Canada, and NewZealand would share some of the
same characteristics.
No matter what lens you look atthese systems through, they are
(38:20):
the best game in town.
And again, these are capitalistsocieties, but they borrow from
socialism.
In terms of economics, thesecountries see economic growth at
higher rates, lowerunemployment, higher rates of
job creation, betterproductivity per work hour,
lower poverty, lesshomelessness.
In terms of social issues,there's greater gender equality,
(38:41):
better education, bettereducation equality, more social
mobility, better health care,better quality of life in
general.
Socialism doesn't necessarilymean Marxism or communism, and
it doesn't have to meanabandoning things like
individual rights.
Entire branches of socialism arecentered around individualism as
their highest value.
(39:01):
In many of its manifestations,socialism just means allowing
government to more efficientlydo what we already called upon
it to do (39:08):
protect people's rights, protect people from
abuses of the free market, andprovide social safety nets.
And neither I nor any otherreasonable person want to
achieve those things through thepower of one authoritarian
person or small group of people.
It should be done democraticallythrough representative
government or genuine communalownership, like it's done in
(39:30):
every place on earth wheresocialism has worked.
Socialism combined withdemocratic values, which
countries like the U.S.
in principle hold dear, can giveus something desirable in terms
of preventing the working classfrom being exploited by the rich
and corporations, preventingdevastating wealth inequality,
and providing basic human needslike health care and education.
(39:53):
Many other societies have shownus that these things can be
accomplished without anythingreminiscent of the extreme
examples often pointed to forpeople to claim that socialism
doesn't work.
SPEAKER_01 (40:08):
In the talented area of our blast and intellectual
path, we're gonna go to a poemcalled I Apologize.
After this, we will see you onthe next episode.
SPEAKER_03 (40:54):
I apologize for being black.
All I am, all I lack.
Please, sir, please now give mesome slack, cause I apologize.
I apologize for being po, forbeing slick and tired.
So since I ain't slick, don'tknow to score.
I do apologize.
I apologize because I bearresemblance most black people
(41:16):
share.
Thick lip, flat nose, lappyhair.
Yes, I apologize.
I apologize for how I look, forall the lows and blows I took.
On those love nose, I closed thebook as I apologize.
I apologize for all I gave, forletting you make me your slave
and go into my early grave.
Yes, I apologize.
(41:37):
I apologize for being caught,for being sold, for being
bought, I'm being told I comefor not.
Yeah, I apologize.
I apologize for all I've done,for all my toilet out in the
sun.
Don't wanna spoil your righteousfun.
So I apologize.
I apologize and curse my kindfor being fooled, for being
(41:57):
blind, for being rude and inyour mind.
Yes, I apologize.
I apologize and curse my fatefor being slow for being late,
because I know it's me you hatewhy not apologize.
I apologize and tip my hat,cause you so rich and free and
fat.
Some of a bitch that's weird'shat and I apologize.
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm Darrell McLean, anindependent media that will
reinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving now.
Let us reason together.
Trump's Middle East victory lap,let's talk about the spectacle
that just unfolded in the MiddleEast.
President Donald Trump neverwanted to shy away from the
spotlight, wrapped up awhirlwind tour he dubbed the
historic dawn of a new MiddleEast.
(00:20):
Big words, big promises, and ifyou take the man at face value,
the war in Gaza is now over.
SPEAKER_04 (00:25):
Done.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
Finished and tied up with a ribbon.
But you and I both know peaceisn't just a signature on paper.
It is an applause and thekinekon sat or smiles in Cairo.
Peace is fragile, messy, and itdoesn't care about how many
cameras are rolling when youdeclare it.
Trump says the war is over.
On Air Force One, before hisplane even hit the tarmac, Trump
told reporters the war is over.
He doubled down after landing inIsrael.
He tripled down in Egypt.
(00:47):
And in his grand, sweeping wayhe declared it 3,000 years to
get to this point.
Now I don't know about you, butI've read enough history to know
that 3,000 years of conflictdoesn't evaporate because one
man signed a peace plan.
The ink may be dry, but theweapons in Gaza are not.
The entire deal hinges on Hamashanding over its arms to
spanning militias and renouncingpower.
That's not just a tough ask,it's an ask that borders on
(01:08):
fantasy.
Senator Lindsey Graham, whousually marches in lockstep with
Trump, felt the need to wave ared flag.
He basically said, Hold yourhorses.
Even while Trump was basking invictory, militias in Gaza were
still killing each other,hostages, the joy and the grief
now to the human side.
On Monday, Israel welcomed homethe last twenty living hostages.
(01:29):
Families cried tears that hadbeen held back for too long,
brutal years.
That is no small victory.
It is life itself returned.
But joy and grief are tangledtogether here.
Twenty-eight hostages never cameback alive.
Their remains are now beingpulled out of Gaza piece by
piece.
Four coffins arrived in Israelthis week.
(01:50):
Twenty-four more are stillunaccounted for.
Imagine that pain waiting yearsfor a loved one's return only to
receive a coffin.
And worse, Hamas is stalling,saying it needs more time to
find the bodies as if the deadare bargaining chips.
The hostages and missingfamilies form a group that has
stood by these families from thebeginning, said enough is
enough.
They want the ceasefiresuspended until Hamas makes good
(02:12):
on the deal.
And they're right, because anagreement that doesn't respect
the dead won't respect theliving for long.
Netanyahu stays home, Abbasshows up, then there's the
political theater.
Prime Minister Netanyahudeclined Trump's invitation to
Egypt, citing the Jewish holidayof Simchat Torah.
That's a legitimate reason, butlet's not kid ourselves, his
absence spoke louder than anyholiday observance.
He doesn't trust this deal.
(02:33):
He doesn't want to share a stagewhere the Palestinian Authority
is being embraced.
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas, 89years old and clinging to power
in the West Bank, did show up.
Trump claspsed his hand likethey were old friends, even
though this was only theirsecond meeting.
Trump envisions Abbas's reformedPalestinian Authority as the
future of Gaza.
Netanyahu envisions, well,something entirely different.
(02:56):
He wants no Palestinian state atall.
And there lies the contradictionTrump's plan requires
cooperation from leaders whodon't even agree on the
destination.
Abraham Accords 2.0, of course,Trump couldn't resist talking
about legacy.
He named dropped the AbrahamAccords at every turn, bragging
about those 2020 deals whereBahrain, the UAE, and Morocco
normalized ties with Israel.
He's dreaming of a bigger club,Saudi Arabia, maybe even Iran.
(03:21):
Yes, you heard Trump teased theidea of a truce with Tehran,
calling it the best decisionIran has ever made.
Bold words, but history saysIran isn't exactly quick to play
ball.
Still, you can see the strategy.
Trump wants this Gaza peace dealto be the springboard that
finally pushes reluctant Arabnations into Israel's orbit.
He wants to close the circle andstamp his name on Middle Eastern
diplomacy for good.
(03:41):
Gaza.
The broken future.
Step away from the cameras, theapplause, the speeches, and you
face Gaza itself.
Tens of thousands ofPalestinians dead.
Entire neighborhoods leveled.
Infrastructure destroyed.
Children growing up surroundedby rubble and grief.
British Prime Minister KerrStarmer, who was at the summit,
put it plainly.
(04:02):
In other words, signingceremonies are easy.
Rebuilding lives, demilitarizingGaza, creating something that
looks like a future, that's thehard part.
Trump's board a PCS, that's theactual name is supposed to
oversee this.
He's chairing it himself, withnames like Tony Blair thrown in
the mix.
But Hamas has already made itclear Blair isn't welcome.
His role in the Iraq War makeshim toxic in Gaza.
(04:23):
And if you think Hamas is aboutto smile and hand over its
weapons because Trump and Blairasked nicely, I've got
beachfront property in Kabul tosell you.
The verdict, so here's where Iland, Trump's trip was flashy.
It was historic in the sensethat hostages came home and a
peace deal, however shaky, wassigned.
That matters.
But history doesn't rewarddeclarations, it rewards
results.
And right now, Gaza is a powderkeg, Hamas still holds its guns,
(04:46):
Netanyahu is keeping hisdistance, and the Palestinian
Authority is barely standing.
Trump says the war is over.
I say the war has just entered anew phase.
Peace, if it comes, won't be theresult of applause lines or
victory lapse.
It'll be earned or lost in therubble of Gaza, in the
negotiations nobody televises,in the compromises nobody wants
to make.
For the families reunited withtheir loved ones this week is a
(05:07):
miracle.
For the families still waitingon bodies, it is heartbreak.
For everyone else, it is areminder peace in the Middle
East has been declared manytimes before.
The question is How long will itbe kept?
We have a show question todayfrom Paul, Texas passed an
ordinance or a law not surewhich to ban political signage
on roads.
For example, rainbows atintersections.
(05:30):
What to think of this?
Texas governor recently issued adirective saying roadways must
be ideology free.
No political ideologies paintedon streets, no non-standard
signage, no symbols or flags onintersections or crosswalks
unless they serve a directtraffic or safety function.
Cities face losing state andfederal transportation funding
(05:51):
if they don't comply within 30days.
Specifically, the spotlight ison rainbow crosswalks, a symbol
of LGBTQ plus pride in citieslike Houston, Austin, San
Antonio, Dallas.
So yes, it's not exactly ban allsignposts by Rose, but a
targeted lawslash directive toremove symbols that carry
ideological meaning from publicroadways.
(06:13):
What I think of it, with pros,cons, and warning flags, the
concern over each suppression,slippery slope, freedom of
expression.
When the state says certainsymbols like rainbows are
political ideologies and thusmust come down, it bleeds into
censorship.
Which ideologies will be next?
How do you draw the line withoutbias?
(06:34):
Weaponizing funding.
Using funding as leverage toforce compliance is
heavy-handed.
Local governments often needthose dollars to fix real roads.
This is a coercive power play,symbolic erasure.
Removing crosswalks or symbolstied to marginalized communities
is erasure in plain sight.
It sends a message, you are lesswelcome, less visible.
(06:56):
Pretext of safety and ampuniformity.
Arguments about distraction ornon-uniform markings are
plausible, but they're also easycover.
If the same paint jobs existedfor acceptable ideologies, would
the same argument hold?
Constitutional risk, laws thatrestrict expressive conduct,
especially in public forms, mustsurvive First Amendment
(07:18):
scrutiny.
To ban expressive symbolswholesale is risky legally.
The argument in favor thatpeople pushing this will make
traffic and driver safety.
If roadways become visual noise,it could distract drivers.
Consistency in road design.
Public roads have standards.
Symbols or coloring that deviatemight confuse signage systems,
(07:41):
emergency responders, orautomated vehicle sensors,
neutral government space.
The idea that public roadsshould not serve as platforms
for political messaging, keepgovernment spaces ideologically
neutral.
Taxpayer stewardship.
Spending public money to promoteideologies is a slippery slope,
(08:01):
critics will argue.
My take I lean sharply on theside that this is a political
power move masquerading as asafety regulation.
The safety and uniformityjustifications are thin when you
see them applied selectively,e.g., pointing at rainbow
crosswalks, but not sayreligious or historical murals.
And the timeline, 30 days,funding threats, reeks of
(08:23):
wanting fast compliance beforepushback and build.
What worries me most?
Someone picks a symbol theydon't like, labels it political,
and poof it has no rights.
This law doesn't just remove acrosswalk, it reshapes whose
identity is to be public.
That said, I'm notunconditionally opposed to
regulating signage.
(08:44):
Roads do need clarity, but thestandards must be content
neutral, applied even-handedly,transparent, subject to judicial
review, and not used to a racedissent.
To watch for slash how thismight play out, one legal
challenges.
I expect lawsuits.
Someone will argue FirstAmendment, equal protection.
(09:06):
If localities had rainbowcrosswalks but not others, that
differential treatment issuspect.
Two, pushback from cities.
Some may try to get exemption.
San Antonio is already trying.
Three, creative resistance.
Communities may shift tosidewalk murals if that's
allowed, or symbolic art onpublic property off roadbeds.
(09:29):
Four national trend.
This echoes what's going on inFlorida at the federal level, US
dot where ministries want topurge political messages from
roadways.
Five, ambiguity exploitation.
The laws vague phrases politicalideologies give officials broad
discretion.
That's dangerous.
(09:53):
Folks, let's talk about arainbow.
Not the one in the sky after astorm, the one painted at an
intersection in Houston.
The kind of crosswalk that tellsyou a neighborhood is alive,
proud, and saying somethingabout who they are.
That rainbow is now on thechopping block.
Why?
Because the governor of Texashas decided rainbows are
(10:14):
political ideology and don'tbelong on public roads.
Governor Abbott's directive sayscities have 30 days to strip
away anything on their streetsthat isn't uniform traffic
safety markings.
The warning was clear.
Fail to comply, and you risklosing not just state dollars,
but federal transportationfunding.
It's the political version ofnice city you got, their shame
(10:37):
if something happened to yournow.
The talking point here is safetyand consistency.
They'll tell you non-standardmarkings might distract drivers
or confuse self-driving cars ormess with emergency responders.
I'm not dismissing thatentirely, roads do need clarity.
When you're barreling down I-10at 75 miles per hour, you don't
(11:00):
want to play guess that symbol.
But let's be honest, this isn'tabout traffic safety.
This is about erasing symbols ofcommunities that certain
politicians don't like seeingout in the open.
Because let's test their logic.
If this is about uniformity, whydo we allow painted blue lines
on roads for back the blue?
Why do we allow giant highwaysigns announcing religious
(11:22):
holidays or political heroes?
If safety is truly the issue,then you'd apply the standard
neutrally across the board.
But the hammer always seems tocome down when the paint job
celebrates pride, diversity, oranything outside the political
comfort zone of whoever's incharge, and here's where it gets
dangerous.
The word political ideology isintentionally vague.
(11:44):
Who gets to decide what countsas political?
Is a mural of Dr.
Martin Luther King political?
Is a memorial cross for a fallensoldier painted near a base
political?
What about a breast cancerribbon crosswalk?
Does that count?
Once you hand government leadersthe power to pick and choose
which symbols are tooideological, you've opened the
(12:05):
door for selective erasure.
That is censorship with atraffic cone slapped on it.
This isn't just paint.
Symbols in public space tell youwho belongs there, whose voice
is heard, whose history isremembered.
When you strip rainbows off theroad, you're not just removing
bright colors, you're dimmingthe visibility of people who
already feel pushed to themargins.
(12:27):
A rainbow crosswalk in Montrose,Houston wasn't confusing
anyone's Toyota Corolla.
It was a declaration.
Now, what's the other side ofthe argument?
They'll say, well, governmentshouldn't be endorsing
(12:48):
ideologies with taxpayer money.
Fair enough.
But then be consistent, ban themall, not just the ones that make
you uncomfortable.
You can't weaponize neutralityto only silence the groups you
don't like.
Neutrality means either everyonegets to speak or nobody does.
But the one thing it can't meanis the state decides which
(13:10):
voices count as neutral andwhich voices count as dangerous.
That's not neutrality, that'spower flexing.
And notice the stick they'reswinging, funding.
Cities depend on thosetransportation dollars to patch
potholes, fix bridges, keepbuses running.
By tying compliance to money,the state is essentially saying
erase these communities'presence or we'll make sure your
(13:32):
streets crumble.
But that's not lawmaking, that'sextortion.
What happens next?
Well, I expect lawsuits.
Cities like San Antonio arealready exploring whether they
can hold on to their rainbowcrosswalks.
Civil rights groups will almostcertainly challenge the
directive on First Amendmentgrounds.
And don't be surprised if sometowns create a painting their
(13:55):
sidewalks instead of thestreets, or finding other ways
to send the same message withouttechnically breaking the rule.
You can scrub the asphalt, butyou can't scrub community pride
out of a neighborhood.
But bigger picture, this is partof a national trend.
We've seen Florida clamp down onwhat can be displayed in public
schools.
(14:15):
We've seen federal agenciesdebate whether Black Lives
Matter murals belong onroadways.
What we're watching is amovement to sanitize public
space so that it reflects onlythe symbols of power, not the
symbols of dissent or diversity.
And let's call that what it is.
It's not about safety, it'sabout control.
So here's my question to you,the listener: if the state can
(14:36):
decide a rainbow is toopolitical for the road, what
else can they decide?
Could a mural honoring veteransbe considered political?
Could a city slogan likeSanctuary City get scrubbed?
The danger of vague laws is theycan be applied selectively today
against one group, tomorrowagainst another.
Here's the closing thought.
(14:57):
Roads are more than concreteslabs that get us from point A
to B.
They're arteries of communitylife.
And sometimes communities paintthose arteries with color to
say, we are alive.
When the state threatens toblack that out, it's not
protecting drivers, it'sprotecting a hierarchy of
visibility.
And if you're comfortable withthat now, just wait until your
(15:18):
symbol, your memorial, yourpride is the next thing they
decide is too political.
Shut down to enter third weekafter Senate rejects bill to
reopen government, the Senaterejected a bill to reopen the
government for the eight timeTuesday, ensuring the shutdown
will enter its third week withlawmakers nowhere close to
finding a resolution.
Senators voted 4945 on the GOP'sHouse passed continuing
(15:40):
resolution, which would fund thegovernment through late
November, and needed 60 votes toadvance.
Sense.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Denev,and Sen.
Angus King I main voted withRepublicans as they have for
nearly two weeks.
John Fetterman Ye, who had votedin favor of the resolution every
other time it has come to thefloor, was not present on
(16:01):
Tuesday.
Rand Paul was, once again, thelone GOP, no vote.
The vote comes as the two sidesremain at a stalemate, with
neither wanting to give anyground.
I guess Democrats are not goingto be satisfied until military
families and government workersare lining up at food banks or
visiting payday lenders orsimply charging necessary items
like milk and bread on theircredit cards to be repaid late.
(16:23):
Senate Majority Leader John saidon the floor before the vote,
lambasting a report thatDemocrats are willing to allow
the shutdown to go on forseveral more weeks.
But hey, while military familiesand government workers may be
deeply stressed, at least lifeis getting better every day for
Senate Democrats, he continued,referring to a comment Senate
(16:44):
Minority Leader Chuck Schumermade last week about Democrats'
political fortunes amid theimpasse.
Democrats have repeatedly calledfor any deal on government
funding to include an extensionof the Enhanced Affordable Care
Act, ACAACA subsidies that areset to expire at year's end.
The GOP, meanwhile, has insistedany talks on those credits can
(17:07):
only take place once thegovernment reopens and have
publicly pleaded for fiveadditional Democrats to side
with them to do so.
That has not happened, though,leading Democrats to argue that
the repeated failed votes beingheld by the majority party
should be an impetus for the twosides to hammer out a deal on
the subsidies.
(17:28):
That means, like it or not, theRepublican leader needs to work
with Democrats in a bipartisanway to reopen the government.
Just as we did when we passed 13CR's continuing resolutions when
I was majority leader, Schumersaid.
The ACA premium crisis is not afix-it-later issue, but rather a
fix-it-now issue, he continued.
(17:49):
Republicans may think they candig in until the next ice age,
but a fork in the road is comingtheir way, whether they like it
or not.
While there was little change inthe numbers, the vote marked a
slight change in GOP tactics.
For the first time since theshutdown started, it was held
without a companion vote on aDemocratic proposal to end the
shutdown.
The failed vote also brings theshutdown closer to making
(18:13):
history.
Not only does it mean theimpasse will continue into its
third week, but it could becomethe second longest shutdown in
U.S.
history on Friday.
It would eclipse the 2013shutdown over the ACA that was
spearheaded by Ted Crewe, Texas.
The record is held by the 35-daybattle in 2018-19 over President
Trump's one-for-border wallfunding.
(18:36):
The Supreme Court on Tuesdayturned down conspiracy theorist
Alex Jones' appeal of a roughly$1.4 billion defamation judgment
he owes for falsely claiming theSandy Hook Elementary School
shooting was a hoax.
The brief order ends Jones' bidto stave off the staggering sum
which has plunged him intobankruptcy and could force him
to give up airing his inforcedshow.
(18:57):
Jones's Supreme Court petitioncalled it financial death
penalty by fiat.
He said his statements werelifted out of context and the
judge didn't give enough weightto his First Amendment
arguments.
Alex Jones is a media defendantentitled to all First Amendment
freedom of the pressprotections, the petition reads.
The justices did not appear togive it much consideration, as
(19:18):
they did not request thefamilies respond to Jones's
petition.
The Supreme Court properlyrejected Jones's latest
desperate attempt to avoidaccountability for the harm he
has caused.
We look forward to enforcing thejury's historic verdict and
making Jones and InfoWars payfor what they have done.
Chris Mattei, an attorneyrepresenting the family, said in
(19:39):
a statement.
Though it's unclear how much thefamilies will recover of the
roughly$1.4 billion billionaward.
Jones remains in bankruptcy, andthe families have moved in
recent weeks to sell assetsowned by his company and free
speech systems.
(20:00):
A judge recently confirmed thoseassets are part of the
bankruptcy estate and thefamilies can pursue claims in
state court.
The families have recentlyconvinced the Texas State Judge
to appoint a receiver, thoughJones is appealing the order.
He has warned that InfoWarscould be sold off to the Onion,
a satirical news site.
Last year, the Onion entered thewinning bid in an auction to
(20:21):
take control of InfoWars, but itwas blocked by the bankruptcy
judge.
The plaintiffs here are on theopposite side of the ideological
spectrum and do not want moneyfor their judgment.
Jones's lawyers wrote to thejustices that their initial
motivations were to get Jones'message off the air.
But after entry of thedevastating, record-breaking
$1,436,650,000 judgment, thatmotivation morphed to something
(20:47):
more sinister.
Now let's go into a blast fromthe intellectual past.
SPEAKER_00 (20:54):
Socialism has never worked.
It's become a truism, repeatedby right-wingers and people who
just don't know much aboutpolitical theory.
It could be something someonetries to say when you tell them
you voted for Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders, don't you knowthat socialism has never worked?
Many don't know much about thehistory of socialism or even
(21:15):
really understand what socialismactually is.
They hear the word socialism andthey think of authoritarian
regimes like the Soviet Union orNorth Korea.
Or even worse, they might say,hey, socialism doesn't work when
they're having a conversationabout someone like Barack Obama,
implying that Obama is himself asocialist.
Now it should go without sayingthat Obama is not a socialist,
(21:39):
but this actually has to beexplained to some people.
This is true regardless ofwhether you are for or against
socialism or communism orcapitalism or social democracy.
I am not a socialist, but I canonly understand that if I
actually know what socialism is.
So let's begin there.
(21:59):
Defined by a textbook, socialismis the collective ownership of a
society's means of production.
Means of production could benon-human resources used to
produce things of economic valuelike real estate or farmland,
natural resources, equipment,buildings, infrastructure,
roads, and collective ownershipof these things, meaning workers
(22:21):
or the public own them.
Some define socialism as asystem by which social equality
can be achieved.
In this broader way of thinkingabout it, socialism could mean
any kind of socialisticphilosophies or attitudes or
tendencies, or a system thatcombines orthodox socialist
practices with other constructslike capitalism.
(22:42):
For instance, you could say thatsome Scandinavian countries are
socialistic by modern standards,not because they have a system
where the government or workersown everything, but because they
have a system where there's arelatively greater amount of
intervention by democraticgovernment to protect
socialistic ideals likeegalitarianism, civil rights,
(23:03):
equal education,environmentalism, and the
prevention of abuse by actors inthe free market.
These are capitalist societies,and they're definitely not
realizations of socialism asdefined in a political science
glossary, but these aremanifestations of socialistic
inclinations, especially whencompared to what goes on in many
other developed countries.
(23:25):
Socialism is an extremely broadumbrella term to describe a wide
range of political, social, andeconomic systems, movements, and
ideas.
Let's explore where socialismcomes from, some of its
variations, and how theyfunctioned in society.
Some elements of socialism haveancient roots.
Ancient Buddhism taught that theindividual and all other living
(23:49):
beings are interconnected andinterdependent, and that all
humans should be treated equallyand with kindness.
People often draw parallelsbetween socialism and Buddhism,
and many say that Plato'srepublic first articulated the
notion of a socialist state, astate that aims to solve social
problems by government actionthrough higher taxes and
(24:09):
redistribution of resources.
There are lots of other aspectsof Plato's Republic that don't
at all align with modernsocialism.
Socialistic ideals are seenbeing portrayed in the Hebrew
Bible, which in many places saysthat people should be treated
equally and that we should begenerous to the have-nots.
The book of Leviticus says youshall not oppress or exploit
(24:31):
your neighbor.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Deuteronomy says God enactsjustice for orphans and widows,
and he loves immigrants, givingthem food and clothing.
That means you must also loveimmigrants because you were
immigrants.
Don't take advantage of poor orneedy workers, whether they are
fellow Israelites or immigrantswho live in your land or your
(24:53):
cities.
From Ecclesiastes, it is God'sgift to humankind that everyone
should eat and drink.
From Psalms, give justice to theweak and the fatherless,
maintain the right of theafflicted and the destitute,
rescue the weak and the needy,deliver them from the hand of
the wicked.
Now, this might get awkward forantisocialist Christian
(25:14):
conservatives, but the NewTestament is also chock full of
socialist themes.
Jesus advocated that all people,including governments, should
provide for the poor anddistribute resources according
to people's needs.
Some quotes from the NewTestament All who believed were
together and had all things incommon, and they sold their
possessions and goods anddivided them among all men as
(25:37):
every man had need.
And the multitude of them thatbelieved were of one heart and
of one soul, neither said any ofthem that aught of the things
which he possessed was his own,but they had all things in
common.
If you would be perfect, go,sell what you possess, and give
to the poor.
When you give a feast, invitethe poor, the maimed, the lame,
(26:01):
the blind, and you will beblessed, because they cannot
repay you.
Distribution was made unto everyman according as he had need.
To take another religiousexample, in Zoroastrianism, the
prophet Nazdak the Younger insixth century Persia promoted
the implementation of socialwelfare institutions and
(26:21):
collective ownership ofproperty.
Many ancient religionsacknowledged the social nature
of humans, whether on purpose orby accident, and promoted
equality, caring for the needy,and common ownership.
The term socialism itself wasn'tused until the early 19th
century in Western Europe byphilosophers and social critics
(26:41):
like Pierre Joseph Proudhon,Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert
Owen.
At first, the word was used notto describe any one political
system, but as an abstraction, aphilosophy that societies could
or should operate to serve thecollective, as opposed to just
thinking about the individual.
This was in the wake of theFrench Revolution and in large
(27:02):
part a reaction to the povertyand inequality that was growing
out of the IndustrialRevolution.
And then over the course of the19th and 20th centuries, there
were many, many differentphilosophies that branched out
of this to form separatesocialist intellectual
movements.
This is where the idea thatsocialism means any one thing is
dispelled.
(27:22):
When someone says socialism hasnever worked, be suspicious that
they're thinking very narrowlyand really not taking into
account how many different typesof socialism there really are
and how different types ofsocialism have manifested, or
they might just be completelyclueless about history, too.
Many of the flavors of socialismhave some overlap and aren't
(27:45):
necessarily mutually exclusivemovements.
One of the first schools ofsocialist thought was utopian
socialism, which in itself issort of an umbrella of different
theories.
But in this way of thinking,socialists have posed that
capitalists, factory owners, andothers would voluntarily hand
over the means of production toworkers.
(28:06):
They believed that this would beaccomplished by way of education
and conversations betweensocialists and capitalists until
all the means of production werecontrolled by the collective and
decentralized democracies.
Many utopian socialists drewfrom Christianity to form the
rationales for their views.
Utopian socialism has often beencriticized for focusing too much
(28:28):
on theoretical models of how thesocialism might work and not
enough on how it would beachieved, hence the name
utopian.
Then there's Marxism.
Now many people refer to Marxismcolloquially as communism, even
though communism can actuallydescribe an array of different
systems, some of which don'teven involve a state, which I'll
touch on in a second.
(28:49):
But Marxism is definitely notmerely synonymous with socialism
the way many people think.
Marxism is a type of socialismor a type of communism,
something very specific.
And it's not just an economicsystem, it's an entire
philosophical worldview and away of analyzing politics and
society, economics, history,religion, art, whatever.
(29:12):
And there is much, much morethat can be explained about
Marxism than I'm able to coverin this video, but as an
ultra-simplified overview,political Marxism is centered
around class struggle,revolution, and Marx's
historical theory ofmaterialism.
Marxism advocates a revolutionwherein a society's means of
(29:32):
production are taken by forcerather than by reform or
negotiation or slower forms oftransition.
The means of production willthen be controlled by a
proletarian state, which intheory will lead to an
egalitarian, stateless societythat governs itself without
coercive institutions.
Really important point here.
(29:53):
This is not what the SovietUnion or its quote communist
successors achieved or were.
Working toward, despite theirpretenses.
Bolshevism, Maoism, and the likeare inherently right-wing,
totalitarian perversions ofMarxism.
In direct contrast to Marxismand other forms of state
socialism is libertariansocialism, where there's an
(30:17):
emphasis on having a state thatis either small and
decentralized or completelynonexistent.
One version of libertariansocialism is anarchism, which is
a set of socialist movementsthat generally oppose the idea
of hierarchies and authorityaltogether, especially the
state.
Really, no variation or stage ofanarchism involves government by
(30:38):
definition, and almost allschools of anarchism see any
type of hierarchy as eitherunnecessary or unethical in any
kind of human interaction, aboss at the workplace, a leader
in a social movement, whateverthe case may be.
Now, within anarchism, there isanarchist communism, which seeks
to abolish not only the statebut all markets, money, and
(30:59):
private property in exchange forcommunal ownership of the means
of production and decentralizedgrassroots direct democracies.
There is anarcho-syndicalism,which can be thought of as a
sort of extension of anarchistcommunism, where the means of
production are controlled byconfederated trade unions called
syndicates.
(31:19):
This type of anarchism actuallymanifested in Catalonia, Spain,
right before World War II.
In this instance, socialismworked.
Almost all industries andaspects of the economy were
collectivized, and societyfunctioned efficiently without
capitalism or money.
Catalonia was able to providequality health care for its two
and a half million inhabitants.
(31:41):
Under anarcho-syndicalism,Catalonia saw a growth in wealth
and production and absence ofpoverty.
More schools were built allaround, objectively better
public services were provided,and they had a highly effective
military, which they constantlyused to protect themselves
against the Spanish nationalistforces during the Spanish Civil
War.
George Orwell described what hesaw when he visited Catalonia in
(32:05):
the 1930s.
It was the first time I had everbeen in a town where the working
class was in the saddle.
This shows you what human beingsare like when they are trying to
behave as human beings and notas cogs in the capitalist
machine.
Anarcho-syndicalist communitiesalso exist today in Chiapas,
Mexico, which first developed inthe 1990s under the Zapatista
(32:27):
movement.
Today they successfully provideadequate education and
healthcare services forthemselves.
They have sustainable andecologically sound agricultural
practices, which provide morethan enough food, and they are
champions of women's rights andthe rights of indigenous
Mexicans.
And there are many other typesof socialist anarchism.
By the way, socialist anarchismshould be redundant because
(32:50):
things like anarcho-capitalismpresent oppressive economic
hierarchies of authority thatare inherently non-anarchistic.
But with all of the ANCAPsrunning around on the internet
these days, it's worth justclarifying that point.
Beyond anarchism, there isdemocratic socialism and social
democracy, which seek toimplement the principles of
(33:11):
socialism in the context of ademocratic and sometimes
capitalist state, principleslike equality, social justice,
environmentalism, civilliberties, free speech.
Democratic socialism and socialdemocracy differ from anarchism,
obviously, because there is astate.
They differ from Marxism becausethey're frequently thought of as
systems that are achievedthrough reform as opposed to
(33:33):
revolution, or they're thoughtof as vehicles for reform to
something else.
And they also don't carry manyof the other characteristics of
Marxism.
Democratic socialism and socialdemocracy are often considered
more centrist than Marxism oranarchism, and, according to
many, are even compatible withcapitalism or at least some
elements of capitalism.
(33:54):
In other words, in democraticsocialism and social
democracies, you can havemarkets, but the state provides
a great deal of regulation andsocial welfare.
Distinctions are sometimes madebetween democratic socialism and
social democracy, in thatdemocratic socialist states will
ensure that major factions ofindustry are publicly owned,
while social democracies tend toexist within more capitalist
(34:17):
frameworks.
Currently, no countries in theworld really fit the description
of democratic socialism.
Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez,claimed to be democratic
socialist, but it was and stillis, by the way, just another
right-wing, oppressive,authoritarian type of socialism.
There are a handful of countriestoday that can be accurately
(34:39):
described as social democracies.
Modern social democracies allowegalitarianism, things like
social welfare, universal healthcare, and representative
democracy to flourish within thecontext of capitalism.
Think of countries like Denmark,Finland, Norway, Iceland,
Sweden.
So modern social democracy issometimes referred to as the
Nordic model.
(35:00):
These countries have freecollege, free graduate school,
free or inexpensive world-classhealth care paid through taxes.
Compared to other developedcountries, generally speaking,
they have lower rates of crimeand a higher quality of life.
Socialism has been used to solveeconomic problems for millennia
in a wide variety of places andin different forms.
(35:23):
Sumeria, circa 2100 BC, had astate-planned economy.
Food was directly distributedthrough the state.
Evidence of their bureaucraciescan be found written on tens of
thousands of clay tablets thatwere excavated in modern-day
Iraq.
The Code of Hammurabi inBabylonia, around 1750 BC, fixed
(35:44):
the wages of workers and cappedhow much physicians were allowed
to charge their patients.
In Egypt, during the Ptolemaicdynasty from 323 to 30 BC, the
state controlled the means ofproduction and every aspect of
commerce.
The government owned all of theland and decided what crops
should be grown and where.
It controlled the mines, theproduction of oil, salt, paper,
(36:06):
textiles, and everything wasfunded through an intricate
taxation system.
Under Emperor Docletian duringthe 3rd century BC, Rome
responded to harmful monopoliesand widespread poverty and
unemployment by nationalizingall major industries and
creating tons of public workprojects.
The Chinese emperor Wu of Han inthe second and first centuries
(36:31):
BC, to combat growing monopoliesand wealth inequality,
established an income tax,nationalized natural resources,
regulated trade, fixed prices,and established public works.
The longest lasting use ofsocialism is thought to be the
Incan economic system betweenthe 13th and 16th centuries.
Everyone in the societycollectively organized every
(36:53):
aspect of agriculture, labor,trade, and transportation, and
the census kept track ofmaterials, individuals, and
income.
The Incan people graciouslyparticipated in the system in
exchange for security and food,and it worked despite the
massive size of the Incanterritory, and it only fell
apart because of the arrival ofthe Spanish in 1533.
(37:14):
Responding to someone claimingthat socialism has never worked,
I would remind them that to theextent that socialism has been
tried, where ideas andtendencies of democratic,
egalitarian, left-wing socialismhave been woven into political
and economic life and haven'tbeen nullified by right-wing
phenomena like totalitarianism,police states, and oligarchy,
(37:37):
the results have been good.
The right wing or conservativeor classical liberal dogma in
the US is that higher taxes anda strong public sector are just
awful.
They say these things inhibiteconomic growth and innovation,
or that the welfare state andthorough regulation of markets
is unsustainable, or even thatthese things endanger individual
(37:58):
liberty.
As progressives, we know that'snot true, or really anyone who
looks at the data or has studiedtruly democratic applications of
socialism would know that's nottrue.
Look at Scandinavian countriestoday, or even countries like
France, Ireland, Canada, and NewZealand would share some of the
same characteristics.
No matter what lens you look atthese systems through, they are
(38:20):
the best game in town.
And again, these are capitalistsocieties, but they borrow from
socialism.
In terms of economics, thesecountries see economic growth at
higher rates, lowerunemployment, higher rates of
job creation, betterproductivity per work hour,
lower poverty, lesshomelessness.
In terms of social issues,there's greater gender equality,
(38:41):
better education, bettereducation equality, more social
mobility, better health care,better quality of life in
general.
Socialism doesn't necessarilymean Marxism or communism, and
it doesn't have to meanabandoning things like
individual rights.
Entire branches of socialism arecentered around individualism as
their highest value.
(39:01):
In many of its manifestations,socialism just means allowing
government to more efficientlydo what we already called upon
it to do (39:08):
protect people's rights, protect people from
abuses of the free market, andprovide social safety nets.
And neither I nor any otherreasonable person want to
achieve those things through thepower of one authoritarian
person or small group of people.
It should be done democraticallythrough representative
government or genuine communalownership, like it's done in
(39:30):
every place on earth wheresocialism has worked.
Socialism combined withdemocratic values, which
countries like the U.S.
in principle hold dear, can giveus something desirable in terms
of preventing the working classfrom being exploited by the rich
and corporations, preventingdevastating wealth inequality,
and providing basic human needslike health care and education.
(39:53):
Many other societies have shownus that these things can be
accomplished without anythingreminiscent of the extreme
examples often pointed to forpeople to claim that socialism
doesn't work.
SPEAKER_01 (40:08):
In the talented area of our blast and intellectual
path, we're gonna go to a poemcalled I Apologize.
After this, we will see you onthe next episode.
SPEAKER_03 (40:54):
I apologize for being black.
All I am, all I lack.
Please, sir, please now give mesome slack, cause I apologize.
I apologize for being po, forbeing slick and tired.
So since I ain't slick, don'tknow to score.
I do apologize.
I apologize because I bearresemblance most black people
(41:16):
share.
Thick lip, flat nose, lappyhair.
Yes, I apologize.
I apologize for how I look, forall the lows and blows I took.
On those love nose, I closed thebook as I apologize.
I apologize for all I gave, forletting you make me your slave
and go into my early grave.
Yes, I apologize.
(41:37):
I apologize for being caught,for being sold, for being
bought, I'm being told I comefor not.
Yeah, I apologize.
I apologize for all I've done,for all my toilet out in the
sun.
Don't wanna spoil your righteousfun.
So I apologize.
I apologize and curse my kindfor being fooled, for being
(41:57):
blind, for being rude and inyour mind.
Yes, I apologize.
I apologize and curse my fatefor being slow for being late,
because I know it's me you hatewhy not apologize.
I apologize and tip my hat,cause you so rich and free and
fat.
Some of a bitch that's weird'shat and I apologize.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com